IN THE CASE OF:  	Ms.

      BOARD DATE:  	9 May 2014

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20140002405
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the examiner’s Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.




      
      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1.  The applicant did not request an upgrade of her discharge.  However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, she was wrongfully discharged for filing a harassment complaint.  Her chain of command did not want to admit they were wrong, for not taking care of the problem when they were made aware of it.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		3 February 2014
b. Discharge Received:		General, Under Honorable Conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			6 February 2013
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (Serious Offense), AR 635-200
					Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, JKQ, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			G Forward Support Company, 1-82nd Field Artillery 						Regiment, Fort Hood, TX
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:	20 October 2011, 4 years
g. Current Enlistment Service:	1 year, 3 months, 17 days 
h. Total Service:			4 years, 24 days
i. Lost time:				None
j. Previous Discharges:		RA (090113-111019)/HD
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	92G10, Food Service Operations
m. GT Score:				91
n. Education:				one semester of college
o. Overseas Service:			Southwest Asia
p. Combat Service:			Iraq (110708-111231)/Kuwait (120101-120629)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, AAM, NDSM, GWOTEM, ICM-W/ CS, 						GWOTSM, KDSM, ASR, OSR-2
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		No
t. Counseling Statements:		No
u. Prior Board Review:			No

SUMMARY OF SERVICE:

The applicant's record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 January 2009, for a period of 3 years and 21 weeks.  She was 21 years old at the time of entry and had completed one semester of college.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92G10, Food Service Operations.  She reenlisted on 20 October 2011, for a period of 4 years and was 24 years old.  Her record also shows that she served two combat tours, earned several awards including an ARCOM, AAM; and she achieved the rank of SPC/E-4.  She was serving at Fort Hood, TX when her discharge was initiated.

SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES:

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of the complete facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to the discharge from the Army.  However, on 16 January 2013, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.

2.  The record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant’s digital signature.  The DD Form 214 indicates that on 6 February 2013, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, for misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 also shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKQ and a reentry (RE) code of 3.

3.  The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences, time lost or any recorded actions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

4.  On 25 January 2013, DA, HQS, III Corps and Fort Hood, Fort Hood, TX, Orders Number 025-0124, discharged the applicant from the Army effective 6 February 2013.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD:

1.  A Discharge Orders Number 025-0124, dated 25 January 2013.

2.  A DD Form 214, dated 6 February 2013.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 

The applicant provided a DD Form 149, excerpt of an equal opportunity complaint (two pages), DD Form 214, letter, National Personnel Record Center (two pages), Department of Veterans Affairs, compensation decision (two pages), and a Department of Veterans Affairs, rating decision (three pages).

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY:

The applicant did not provide any information with her application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY:

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.   

2.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

ANALYST’S DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of her discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining the applicant’s record of service, her available military records, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning the events which led to her discharge from the Army.  However, the record contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), which was authenticated by the applicant's digital signature.  This document identifies the reason and characterization of the discharge and government regularity is presumed in the discharge process.  

3.  The DD Form 214 also indicates the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense), with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  Barring evidence to the contrary, the presumption of government regularity prevails as it appears that all the requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade.  However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.

5.  The applicant contends she was wrongfully discharged for filing a harassment complaint.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense).

6.  Further, the available record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

7.  The applicant further contends her chain of command did not want to admit they were wrong, for not taking care of the problem when they were made aware of it.  This contention was carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence available in the official record to make a determination as to whether this contention has merit.

8.  Also, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption.  The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support this issue.  There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence to support the contention that her chain of command failed to satisfactorily resolve her complaint. 

9.  Furthermore, the independent document (Department of Veterans Affairs) submitted with her application is acknowledged, which indicated that the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD determined to be service connected and rated as 70% disabling.

10.  Moreover, the applicant's available record does not contain any evidence of an in-service diagnosis of PTSD as indicated in the independent documentation from the VA and the applicant did not submit any corroborating evidence of an in-service diagnosis of PTSD or any related medical issues that indicated the discharge was the result of any medical condition.

11.  The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.  

12.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. 


SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review       Date:  9 May 2014       Location:  Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  NA 

Counsel:  None

Witnesses/Observers:  NA 

Board Vote:
Character Change:  0	No Change:  5
Reason Change:	0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		No
Change Characterization to:	No Change
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Other:					NA



















Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	 	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTHC - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions


ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		AR20140002405



Page 6 of 6 pages


ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1